October 12, 2010

It violates free speech and due process, she wrote, rejecting the arguments made by the Department of Justice lawyers who fought against the change... change that President Obama promised a year ago that he would deliver. Here, watch him — it's chilling to witness now:

"It's important to be honest among friends," he says at 0:24 and then literally puts his tongue in his cheek. He was lying and he knew it. Lying about being honest.

But what damnable luck for the Democrats to have this thrown at them 2 weeks before the election! It's such a bad issue for Obama. He hasn't done what he promised, and he's fought against constitutional rights that he ought to be actively pursuing, whether he'd made promises or not. He's going to have to rest on the argument that he was always all about Congress making the change. But why hasn't his Congress gone his way? And do Democrats in Congress want this issue forefronted now? They've only made everyone unhappy — people who want DADT repealed and people who don't. And then there's the additional issue of "activist" judges.... (Phillips was appointed by President Clinton, who, of course, signed the original Don't Ask Don't Tell statute.)

So once again, we will have the political prospect of the Obama administration simultaneously legally defending the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell in court, while politically saying they oppose both...

Yes, the GOP is the main party to blame. But no, this does not excuse the extra-cautious, gays-are-radioactive mindset of the Obama administration...

The GOP is convenient, and the Obama and the Democrats have taken advantage of that. I think they are deeply responsible for the failure here. Obama's administration is actively fighting against gay rights.

UPDATE: The Obama administration, continuing its active fight against gay rights, will appeal the decision in the case about the Defense of Marriage Act.

213 comments:

A lot of military rules restrict free speech. You're not allowed to criticize your commanders, for instance. When you enlist, you surrender quite a few civil rights for the sake of morale and good order in the military. But you get quite a few benefits, too. If you want to be a gay activist, fine. Just don't do it in the military.

This whole thing makes about as much sense and joining and then filing suit because they wake you too early every day--And those marches and calisthenics and drills and spit and polish.

Doesn't he have two more years to fulfill the promise before the statement is a lie? Actually, let me rephrase: he has two more years, before he can be called a liar.

I suppose it's more important for you to be able to call him a liar, anyway... isn't that the important thing? Chilling.

If you support the repeal of DADT, take note of the article you linked to: If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

The logic behind insisting that Congress make the decision, as opposed to a judge, is of course to make the change more unassailable, "Activist Judges" now being a steady drumbeat from the right.

Obama will say that The Judge must be getting some of that Chamber of Commerce laundered "foreign money". That miserable lie is his latest and greatest. Does a community organizer lie to both sides? Obama is unable to say anything that he really means. That is a mental illness.

I've always thought that the Obama DOJ was defending this statute in court precisely because they want it struck down.

Speaking as someone who served on submarines under DADT (who never told and wasn't asked, because nobody gave a damn), I can tell you that this is a stupid policy. We're losing some of our best people because of this piece of social engineering. Let's repeal it and let the military get back to the things it's supposed to be doing.

I support ending the ban on gays in the military (which isn't called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", no matter how many ignorant news writers describe it as such). This was an act of political cowardice by the Obama Administration. Too cowardly to actively take a stand and propose a change in the law, (which he could have done at any time as a Senator), instead they choose to punt on defending their law in court, and hide behind the judges robes, letting her make the hard calls. This President is a joke

I will give Obama half credit on this one. He did fail to get a solidly Democratic congress to act on something they mostly believe in. This is a failure of leadership. The president is supposed to enforce the laws and since DADT is the law of the land, he should be directing the justice dept to defend it.

The weasely thing to do is to defend the law in an half-assed way and let the judge do your dirty work.

AST: This whole thing makes about as much sense and joining and then filing suit because they wake you too early every day--And those marches and calisthenics and drills and spit and polish.

If only those were comparable. Under DADT gay service members have to be celibate, aren't allowed to fall in love, or start families. You're in danger of losing your job otherwise. AST, perhaps your family means as much to you as polishing your shoes, but I hope not!

I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify something for me. (And I mean that seriously.)

It's my understanding that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue" was just a workaround to allow gays to serve in the military despite UCMJ Section 125, which explicity states that anyone who practices sodomy cannot serve. DADT(DHDP) provides a layer of plausible deniability so that article need not be invoked.

If that's right, then won't overturning this policy simply revert everything back to the UCMJ's much less lenient position? Shouldn't we change the UCMJ first?

As it is now, I get the impression that gay "advocates" are counting on a mass outing of gays in active military service, just to make a point. Which seems awfully selfish toward probable gays happily serving in the military who don't want to be outed or dishonorably discharged.

They've only made everyone unhappy — people who want DADT repealed and people who don't. And then there's the additional issue of "activist" judges.... (Phillips was appointed by President Clinton, who, of course, signed the original Don't Ask Don't Tell statute.)

If Obama thought it really was "THE civil rights issue of our time", he could have repealed DADT in 2009. All he would have had to was make "THE civil rights issue of our time" his top priority, instead of his hypercompromised mess of a health care bill that's going to get torn to shreds by the next Congress anyway.

Obama doesn't care about gays, he just plays a game to get gays' votes and money. And your response is to denounce Ann for accurately pointing out that a game is being played?

I'll believe it's anything more than a game when gay rights activists stop treating it like a game. That means no endorsements, votes, or contributions to candidates (like Obama) who are openly more hostile on "THE civil rights issue of our time" than Dick Cheney.

I think some of this is caused by a fear of having a guy like Titus serving and doing a lot of telling without being asked and mucking things up and causing a big drama queen distraction when and where it's not needed.

Ann, you also know that a Republican led filibuster in the Senate killed the repeal this year.

Ann, what have YOU actually done to promote equal rights for gays and lesbians? Lets see what you have to say if the Tea Party Republicans that you have been pimping over the last year take control of Congress. My guess is that you will be silent if that time comes.

dbp: The weasely thing to do is to defend the law in an half-assed way and let the judge do your dirty work.

Gays are not giving him credit for this. He had the audacity to ask the judge to only apply this ruling to members of the Log Cabin Republicans. If Obama had had his way, only they, not Democrats or Independents would have been protected. He's been doing crap like that for two years, giving us the "fierce advocate" talk the entire time.

You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT while an overwhelming number of Republicans oppose.

This is THE civil rights issue of our time and but you treat it as just a big game.

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that the Democrats treat it like a big game? They've had control of Congress and the White House for almost two years. If they really were interested in overturning DADT, why haven't they done it? Democrats have the numbers and a White House that (allegedly) won't veto it.

Or could it be that they need it as a political carrot on a stick. They'll hold it out there as something they're for and Republicans are against, but they'll never do a thing on it because they wouldn't have a carrot anymore.

Given this: I'm not sure how much of a difference this ruling will make in the actual lives of gay service members. They can be open about their orientation, but that is about it. Article 125 has no exception for marriage even.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Yes Bryan C. Repealling DADT without making the necessary changes to the UCMJ basically means the military returns to asking people their orientation, denying entry to those who admit to being a homosexual, and separating those who lied.

I always assume that the politicians actually crafting the legislation know this, and that any such provisions make the necessary changes to the UCMJ.

However it would make my cynical heart fill with joy should a DADT-repeal measure pass, and then people realize all they did was repeal DADT, not the underlying policy which DADT patched over in the first place.

I don't get it. If you oppose repealing DADT, you should be happy the Democrats didn't get it done. If you support the policy or don't think gays should serve, by all means support the Republican party.

But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense. UNLESS what you care about most... is being able to call Obama a liar, and liberals punks, etc. Then I start to understand.

I am with a singing group that does carols in the Mission Inn Resort in Riverside, and have sung for Judge Virginia Phillips several times there. She is nice and pleasant and not given to the 'airs' that so many judges often put on.

That said, I completely disagree with her decision. I want the courts out of military readiness issues.

DADT does not prevent gays from serving, it permits them to serve. Here is what the US Code ie; Federal Law says:

"TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 > 15)

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—"

You get that everyone? (Not you Bryan, you seem to) Not "may be" separated but "shall be"

If a commander finds out that a troop or sailor has engaged in homosexual activity, on duty or off, they have no choice but to expel them from the service.

DADT let them turn a blind eye and pretend it was not happening.

Now it will be interesting to see if Congress voids the underlying law.

I would not be willing to bet on it.

If they do not, and if a court does not, gays will no longer be able to serve.

Be careful what you wish for (on DADT) it looks like you got it. And I doubt you will like the results.

You should be aware that the lifting of the ban on gays on the military (as pointed out, lifting DADT just reverts the military to it's even more anti-gay servicemembers state) was attached to an unpopular bill that was going to be fillibustered anyway, because of the DREAM Act. I'd have fillibustered it, and I support removing the ban.

That legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate by Republicans.

I like the way the Times leaves out the part that the Dream Act was part of the same vote. I don't care about who's in the military. I do, however, care about who gets in-state tuition at schools I support with my tax money.

"You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT while an overwhelming number of Republicans oppose."

"But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense. UNLESS what you care about most... is being able to call Obama a liar, and liberals punks, etc. Then I start to understand."

I don't particularly support the Republicans. I do despise what the Democrats have done with all the trust and power that was given them in 2008. And the people who voted because of gay rights were tricked. If you support the economic approach of the Republicans but care about all about gay rights, who should you have voted for in 2008?

Here is one immutable result to the elimination of DADT that will happen: a large margin of evangelical kids no longer joining the military. In fact, the military is aware that this drop off because of the DADT debate has already begun. And that may be just fine with many of the posters here. But consider this: when the military already has a percentage of recruits self-identifying as "evangelical Christian" that is more than 3 times the percentage in the national population, where do you think some of those future recruiting numbers will be made up? Not all evangelicals considering military service are now going to avoid signing up, but a lot - and eventually most, will stay away. There are not enough potential gay recruits and sympathizers to the cause to bring those numbers anywhere near back up.

The military is fully aware of this, has been quietly looking for ways to address it, but feels enormous, unprecedented political pressure to eliminate DADT.

Let's take a look at this again next year, and especially in 5 years, shall we? I don’t believe it’s going to turn out nearly as well as the DADT eliminators would have you believe it will.

The military has a main mission and that mission remains the bedrock same whether or not current society loves and honors the military or hates and despises the military And that mission is clearly not to make everyone feel good about themselves for being politically correct.

But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps, you know, you might support one party or the other because gay service in the military isn't your highest priority? Perhaps tax issues, or healthcare, or social security privatization, are higher concerns?

I wonder if the judge left in place the ban on heterosexual sodomy. One can be discharged for a blow job by a girl too.

@MM:How to make this clearer: REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED THE DADT REPEAL IN THE SENATE. You have to have an even bigger majority than Democrats have to overcome the filibuster.

Which is another thing - there are procedural rules in the Senate for suspending the rules so that a simple majority vote is all that is required to bring legislation to a vote. If a senator wants to filibuster, he/she would then have to literally stand and talk continously to keep the vote from occurring.

This was called the "nuclear" option when Republican were in control, complaining about obstructionist Democrats overusing the filibuster rule.

Democrats did have a filibuster proof majority for a while, until Scott Brown was elected. This was about two months before they used reconciliation to pass Obamacare. But if they had used the opportunity to suspend the rules, they could have passed Obamacare, then took up DADT, cap-n-trade, etc.

It seems to me the reason this didn't occur has as much to do with centrist Dems not wanting to be forced to vote for all the controversial legislation all at once. Even though it's been debated to death. And it's the civil rights issue of our times.

Democrats are running from their votes on Obamacare as it is. Imagine if back in March & April they had also voted to end DADT and passed cap-n-trade?

The big question is how did the judge decide this was justiciable, because normally courts grant great deference to the military's view on how to run the military. So what was her rationale for taking up this case?

Concerning the political issues: Just a few posts ago, the professor wanted Obama to enforce the federal marijuana laws. Now she wants the President to refuse to enforce the DADT statute. Should Obama just call Althouse for guidance on which laws to enforce and which to ignore?

The President properly deferred to the military, which has been working on an implementation plan for the repeal of DADT. The plan is due December 1.

Democrats put DADT repeal in the Defense budget bill, the same place DADT was originally put in 1994.

H.AMDT.672 (A019) Amends: H.R.5136 Sponsor: Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] (offered 5/27/2010) AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:Amendment repeals "Don't Ask Don't Tell" only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. The amendment also includes a 60 day period after certification before the repeal takes effect.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:An amendment numbered 79 printed in House Report 111-498 to repeal Dont Ask Dont Tell only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. It would also include a 60 day period after certification before the repeal took effect.

Why do civilians think they know what is best for the military? Don't you think the people IN the military would know what is best for them? I hate to tell you that the military is a whole different world. There is a lot you do not do. There are a lot of rights you give up when you enter the military and YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GIVING UP WHEN YOU ENTER! So all you civilians, stop trying to change something YOU ARE NOT APART OF!!! We don't tell you how to live your life, stop trying to change our way of military life.

when the military already has a percentage of recruits self-identifying as "evangelical Christian" that is more than 3 times the percentage in the national population, where do you think some of those future recruiting numbers will be made up?

Dude, where do you think all the gay people come from? Evangelicals and Mormons, that's who I ever see.

@FLS, perhaps to you the notion of dealing with sticky issues through judicial fiat makes perfectly good sense, but some of us are more thoughtful and are uneasy, if not outright repulsed, by having judges decide issues that should be addressed legislatively.

That's separate and apart from whether DADT is good policy or not, so don't bother trying to argue that issue one way or the other. The issue to me is whether such divisive issues are rightly the province of the Judge Judy's of the world.

Democrats did have a filibuster proof majority for a while, until Scott Brown was elected.

Not counting scheduled recess periods, Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for eleven weeks so far: three last July, four in October, and four in January-February. If only they had better utilized their time.

But supporting the repeal and Republicans at the same time? That doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense if you support lower taxes/spending/etc as well and you rank that higher on the priority list than repealing DADT. Of course, the fact that the policy was put in place by democrats and huge majority democrats were unable to repeal it might also be a factor, since supporting democrats apparently doesn't get the policy repealed.

I am also of the belief that the idea a single judge can overturn the Will of Congress is dangerous. We wouldn't last a year if each member of Congress, all 535 of them, could act like independent satraps like the 3,168 individuals had been appointed to federal judgeships, including 2,645 district court judges.

Imagine each Congress Rep could pass any bill he or she wanted, all on their own!

When we set up an independent judiciary, with a couple dozen judges net inc Supreme Court justices "riding to handle Circuit Court deliberations" - we never intended for todays situation - for 3,168 people to have the autonomous power to jerk any decision by Congress, the military, or the President around to constrain them in favor of a lone wolf judge's agenda.

The activists on the judiciary are determined to shove gay marriage, gays in the military down the throats of the American public - no matter what they want, no matter what the elected officials or appointees of the Executive think should happen.

It all rests on the very thin thread of each of us, no matter what a judge's personal agenda - remaining blindly worshipful of judges as Gods over us all. All 3,168 of them. When the public or the other Branches of Government finally stand up to the "lone wolves" of the judiciary - is when this all ends. And the Constitutional System is brought into balance again.

The greatest blows for Democracy ever struck after the Revolution were when Andrew Jackson told John Marshall to go fuck himself..then by Abraham Lincoln when he told Roger Taney to go fuck himself.

You should be aware that the lifting of the ban on gays on the military (as pointed out, lifting DADT just reverts the military to it's even more anti-gay servicemembers state) was attached to an unpopular bill that was going to be fillibustered anyway,.."

Which makes the claim of a Republican filibuster ON THIS ISSUE a lie. And I more or less expected that was the case the first time someone mentioned it, but I didn't know, just suspected.

So I'm wondering how much gay people like to be treated like idiots by their elected representatives?

Because you can see it... "Wow, the Republicans hate this and are going to filibuster, how can we make that work for us? I know, lets tack DADT on there. We can tell the ignoramuses that it was all the evil Republican's fault without having to stick our political necks out. Win-win."

This was an act of political cowardice by the Obama Administration. Too cowardly to actively take a stand and propose a change in the law, (which he could have done at any time as a Senator), instead they choose to punt on defending their law in court, and hide behind the judges robes, letting her make the hard calls.

Chase: Here is one immutable result to the elimination of DADT that will happen: a large margin of evangelical kids no longer joining the military.

I don't see a problem here. America needs to drastically cut its military spending. A soldier shortage should be the last thing we are worrying about.

And where are these evangelicals going to go instead of the military? Most colleges and large businesses let gays serve openly. The military can't be a weird sociological experiment, which it has been for many years.

Also, the military just became an option for gay children who don't have the support of their families, and ones who do, but want to help defend their country. Plus it just became more attractive to people who always thought it was backwards.

The Congress could have voted to revise certain "blue" areas of the UCMJ. Package the "what sort of sex you can have with your wife" rules with something else obsolete, call it comprehensive, and vote on the changes more or less on the down low. I'm sure there is something else in there causing problems if it was enforced. Do a general clean up job.

That would open up a lot of options and a lot of flexibility to do something constructive about DADT.

So they wont allow King David, Caesar or Alexander in the army?The Israel Minister of Defense when asked on the subject , he answered this is the army of King David, so why will we forbid gays in the military?

Why is anyone surprised that The Zero went back on his word? Aside from Rush's dictum, oft-proven, that everything The Zero says has an expiration date, no one wants to mention the accepted general proposition that The Zero doesn't like homosexuals.

1jpb said...

"If you support the economic approach of the Republicans"

The "if it's broke, don't fix it" type of voters.

As opposed to the Demos, who operate on the principle, "If it's broke, break it some more until it's fixed".

I don't know. Was Tito the guy who was trying to out-reproduce the Soviets?

I do know that military History-wise, military discipline and stopping the "rape and pillage" part of conquest was/is indispensable. It makes "private" parts of a soldier's behavior into legitimate matters for military discipline and manifests *now* as General Order #1, or whatever it is, that forbids consensual sex in our theaters of war. ALL sex. And allows our government to formally forbid our servicemen overseas from visiting prostitutes. It also applies to "consensual" sex within a command structure, and adultery with the spouses of subordinates.

Garage: No, he is going to get to this after the important stuff like demonizing the Chamber of Commerce and, get this, Fox News. After that important business is taken care of he will get to the next thing. Perhaps DADT.

How to make this clearer: REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERED THE DADT REPEAL IN THE SENATE. You have to have an even bigger majority than Democrats have to overcome the filibuster.

Republicans weren't able to filibuster health care, were they?

The Democrats are not in favor of gay rights, they're just in favor of gay money and gay votes. The Republicans won't repeal DADT? Neither will the Democrats when they have a filibuster-proof majority. The Republicans won't support gay marriage? Neither will the Democratic President.

All he would have had to was make "THE civil rights issue of our time" his top priority

Like Clinton did? Gays in the military killed his initiative, leaving him no consolation but toying with a zaftig aide.

So your position is that principle on "THE civil rights issue of our time" should be tossed aside so that . . . um, Obama could lose the initiative and control of Congress just as completely as Clinton did? On the same actual issues—projected deficits ad infinitum and unpopular health care legislation?

Should we expect courage from democrats on any isssue? I'll note that this is exactly what was done vis a vis the Iraq war. They support a position until they have to actually deal with the issue, but then rather than actually address the consequences of said actions, feign ignorance or simply ignore the problem.back in 1998 the Congress, under a Democratic President passed the Iraq Liberation Act. EVERYONE knew at the time why they were passing that act, and EVERYONE who in fact signed on believed that Iraq was a threat to world security, was actively pursuing weapons productions and would never change so long as Sadaam and the B'aathists were in charge. And they also singed on for a transition to democracy, suggesting that it could work in Iraq. And they further gave George Bush authority to go to war.Only when it started looking unpopular they then turned around and said Bush Lied! (and people died!) as if half of them hadn't been arguing the exact same thing only a few years prior. Moral cowards!So now we come to DADT. And the dems say they are going to pass it. And the Dems have the presidency and the Congress and the House. And if they don't pass it now they will not pass it. And what do they do? They pass the buck. Moral cowards!(note, I'm not sure I agree with repealing of DADT, I'm merely commenting on the dems complete lack of fortitude.)

Obama will take credit, among his friends, for ending DADT--even though he didn't lift a finger to make it happen. Among the rest of the country, he will blame it on the judge--when he knows full-well that his justice dept. defended the law in an half-assed manner.

Jason (the commenter) said... Cedarford: I am also of the belief that the idea a single judge can overturn the Will of Congress is dangerous.

I'm happy to hear the government being told it can't do something. That's one less area of control it has, and one more I do!===========================Explain how one unelected government official telling the rest of the government, the military, the rank and file soldiers and their families how it is going to be - is "less government control"????

I served. I also know from this next generation, a number of young guys who served and still serve with distinction in the Army and AF. Two nephews ended up in Ramadi in the absolute worst year. None were or are now what you would call "homosexual tolerant".

Had the more open, flamboyant gays been allowed in, the odds are that many of them would not have enlisted or gone ROTC then got a commission (two current AF guys I know, one Army - all combat vets)

I can see the new gay military having some real downside in recruiting - outside the minimal numbers who sign up as is from the progressive jewish, liberal, blue state colleges of liberal arts...the rest of the country where 99.99% of the military comes from, is not Manhattan south of 125th Steet or San Fransisco.

Woud there be all gay squads? or would gays be mixed in with general population. If gays and straights can be mixed together in the same squad and barracks and there is no issue, why couldn't straight men and women also be in the same barracks. What if the straight guys promise they won't look at the women in a sexual manner (and vice versa). Can't they all just get along? Why is the military so bigoted?

Why should gays be allowed to look at bodies that turn them on while straights are deprived of said right? Similarly, why should straight men or women be leered at by gays who might look at them in a sexual way? If gays get their own squad, why are they allowed to mingle with people who are all on the same page sexually? Why can't straights get the same benefit.If I were in the military, I would want to ogle women in my squad while they take showers, and sleep in the same baracks with them at night. Even better if they get to watch me take showers and ogle me. Lights out will take on a whole new meaning.

This is revealing. I'm wondering if Methadras' musing is reflective of what other Irrelephants think in daring to question whether an independent judiciary can rule on the constitutionality of executive acts.

Why isn't Jeremy here to defend the gays and fight the good fight? Has he been frozen into inaction between his love for Obama and his love for gays? If he really cared about gay rights, Jeremy would abandon all support of Obama.

Why isn't Jeremy here to defend the gays and fight the good fight? Has he been frozen into inaction between his love for Obama and his love for gays? If he really cared about gay rights, Jeremy would abandon all support of Obama. -- DADvocate

Cedarford: Explain how one unelected government official telling the rest of the government, the military, the rank and file soldiers and their families how it is going to be - is "less government control"????

In America our government has a balance of powers. The executive and legislative branches can pass all sorts of laws, but they are not allowed to do so if they violate the constitution, which is where they get the authority to pass laws in the first place. They have been told they can't pass any laws they want.

Furthermore, with this ruling many people are gaining the ability to die for our country, who were discriminated against because the majority was trying to impose religious standards on them. And many people in the military now get to be treated the same as other soldiers.

Two nephews ended up in Ramadi in the absolute worst year.

I didn't have the option to join. Frankly, I think you are bragging, and normally I would welcome it, but on this thread, to talk this way, is SHAMEFUL.

...the rest of the country where 99.99% of the military comes from, is not Manhattan south of 125th Steet or San Fransisco.

I live in Florida. I don't have a Manhattan perspective. Even most Republicans think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. My views are not extreme, yours are.

This is revealing. I'm wondering if Methadras' musing is reflective of what other Irrelephants think in daring to question whether an independent judiciary can rule on the constitutionality of executive acts.

There's your constituency for tyranny, right there.

Last I looked, it was the Demos passing legislation against the will of the people.

PS Notice Ritmo doesn't answer Methedras' question (could it be, despite his case of the galloping snides, he doesn't know?). Since an executive order covers areas not covered by legislation, but has the force of law, I would expect the Nine Black Dresses could rule on XOs. Anybody know for sure?

This is revealing. I'm wondering if Methadras' musing is reflective of what other Irrelephants think in daring to question whether an independent judiciary can rule on the constitutionality of executive acts.

There's your constituency for tyranny, right there.

I'm not sure what extra details you are reading into my question. I simply asked a simple question. Can a judge revoke an executive order? I don't know, that's why I asked and considering that executive orders generally follow constitutional reasoning, then they would stand up to a constitutional test or at least advice and consent, no? Congress has had ample opportunity to overturn this executive order. So what is the problem that you have in me asking this question? Can you answer it?

The GOP is convenient, and the Obama and the Democrats have taken advantage of that. I think they are deeply responsible for the failure here. Obama's administration is actively fighting against gay rights.

I think to "actively" be fighting against something, you have to be active in fighting it. The ruling just came down today. What is he fighting?

It went up for vote a few weeks ago. It came out 56-43. Every single Republican voted against it, all but one democrat. Harry Reid for procedural purposes. It could have easily passed with just a few Republicans, the same Republicans that brought similar versions of the DREAM Act in previous congress sessions. But of course Republicans could never dream of giving a victory like this to democrats, and you know it. In fact I'm betting you're probably glad republicans voted against it just so you can bash democrats for it, even though every single democrat voted for the repeal in the senate.

Garage: Was the vote on the single issue of DADT? Could there have been other things contained in the bill? Controversial topics like this are often screened with other measures that will result in a negative vote by one side or the other and which can then be used for political purposes.

PS Notice Ritmo doesn't answer Methedras' question (could it be, despite his case of the galloping snides, he doesn't know?). Since an executive order covers areas not covered by legislation, but has the force of law, I would expect the Nine Black Dresses could rule on XOs. Anybody know for sure?

Hello. The chief executive, as chief enforcer of the law, is subject to all kinds of judicial scrutiny when it comes to the constitutionality of his acts - whether issued as executive orders or otherwise.

Being the chief executive is not some kind of shield against allowing the courts to rule on the constitutionality, let alone the legality, of your acts.

One would think this would be basic civics 101, but I guess the idea of the "unitary executive" has either rotted this culture to the core or appealed to the party of chief lawbreaker Richard Nixon in ways that most tyrants could only dream of.

Jason the commentator - "Two nephews ended up in Ramadi in the absolute worst year.

I didn't have the option to join. Frankly, I think you are bragging, and normally I would welcome it, but on this thread, to talk this way, is SHAMEFUL....

==================Go fuck yourself, salami smoker. One was Army artillery out of Ft Carson, the other a medic out of Ft Hood. The 1st was supposed to be in Korea on 155s, ended up doing door to door raids in Ramadi. A lot of fighting. And killing. Left when one of his eardrums was blown out by a suicide car driver trying to deliver a bomb on his position. The medic nephew, if you believe in PTS, which I don't much..had one nightmare month at a different FOB on the outskirts of Ramadi.

Their duty is not mine...so there is no "bragging" involved. Just pride they served and did top notch jobs.

As for "not having an option to join", sure you did, if you could walk without mincing your way along. I served with gays, they were discrete and didn't push it and in turn, they had their back covered. Including by me when an unsat evangelical soldier I was stuck with, got a bug up his ass about "homos" in another unit. Sargeant's reaction, which I heartily endorsed, was to tell the soldier to shut the fuck up, worry about doing his own job - which he at the time sucked at..

Sorry, but if you think the military will gain more from what they lose in recruiting - well, you never served and don't know what you are talking about. And if anything, the gay and Latin soldiers serving are even more "homophobic" than whites.

We understand that the military is a special stituation, and exempt from Fed laws covering other groups "rights" under ADA, elderly job discrimination, Fed civil service rules, women in infantry combat spots, and a host of other "rights violations" that like homosexual rights, are no where in the Constitution save in new hidden words judicial activists add.

Yeah, I have to agree that if the Democrats had wanted to leave a real Civil Rights legacy in regard to gay Americans, they blew it.

There isn't going to be another opportunity for government-mandated pro-gay legislation until at least 2013.

It's a real opener for a lot of people, but was totally predictable. I think the problem with so many years in the wilderness is that the Democratic coalition really didn't understand that its own contradictions would force some hard choices when power came their way again. You can't make everyone happy, but even so a lot of promises were made that will not be delivered (wait a year or so to see how this plays out for the Republicans that have recently promised so much.)

I think the resulting disillusionment is good for everyone. People shouldn't identify with political parties. They are competitors for our votes, not teams that we join. A healthy dose of cynicism is a good thing.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...Hello. The chief executive, as chief enforcer of the law, is subject to all kinds of judicial scrutiny when it comes to the constitutionality of his acts - whether issued as executive orders or otherwise.

Being the chief executive is not some kind of shield against allowing the courts to rule on the constitutionality, let alone the legality, of your acts.

One would think this would be basic civics 101, but I guess the idea of the "unitary executive" has either rotted this culture to the core or appealed to the party of chief lawbreaker Richard Nixon in ways that most tyrants could only dream of.

We know who and what the Chief Executive is and does, dumbfuck. The question still remains, which in your cavernous use of windage, again, you still haven't answered the primary question. Can a judge revoked/overturn an executive order? Not a hard question to answer, I don't think. Of course it is for you because you want to pretend you are the smartest guy in the room. And I'll now compound on the original question with another question. If this executive order has been in place for as long as it has and has undergone the constitutional scrutiny in its inception, then why after 17 years is it all of a sudden unconstitutional?

Yeah, I have to agree that if the Democrats had wanted to leave a real Civil Rights legacy in regard to gay Americans, they blew it.

There isn't going to be another opportunity for government-mandated pro-gay legislation until at least 2013.

It's a real opener for a lot of people, but was totally predictable. I think the problem with so many years in the wilderness is that the Democratic coalition really didn't understand that its own contradictions would force some hard choices when power came their way again. You can't make everyone happy, but even so a lot of promises were made that will not be delivered (wait a year or so to see how this plays out for the Republicans that have recently promised so much.)

I think the resulting disillusionment is good for everyone. People shouldn't identify with political parties. They are competitors for our votes, not teams that we join. A healthy dose of cynicism is a good thing.

All this proves is that being a leftard is not a hard thing to be. Just be for everything for everyone. How hard is that to do? That's the level of ideology you are dealing with. Want homosexuality flaunted openly in all venues of society including the military? Okay. Want your government to become the sole provider for all goods and services? Okay. Want open border and the loss of your national identity? Okay. Want all workers to be unionized? Okay. The list will get quite long. Leftism is the ideology of children. Made up by children in adult bodies, with child like fantasy Utopian Popsicle dreams where anything is permissible and wanton. In the US they are called progressives. Everywhere else they are socialists. Why is this decision anything new? Democrat leftard positions are catching up to them. They are contradictory and cannibalizing and in the face of political realities they don't hold water under any circumstances. They now this and don't care and continue to spread lies while conservatives end up being the whipping posts for those lies.

Where is the justification for allowing homosexuals to serve openly? I don't see one now and didn't see one before DADT was enacted by executive order.

The fact that the legislation to repeal DADT was piggy-backed onto the DREAM Act is proof that the Democrats aren't serious about ending it. DREAM was guaranteed to fail; hence, attach the thing you want to SAY you support, without actually supporting it.

You know perfectly well that an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress support the repeal of DADT

I doubt it. Oh, they say they do. But if they repeal DADT they lose the issue. Same with Republicans and abortion. There are a few who truly want to move the ball, but most of them view the issue as a fund raising opportunity.

I was talking about the breathless update, "Obama and the Democrats have taken advantage of that. I think they are deeply responsible for the failure here. Obama's administration is actively fighting against gay rights."

Actively fighting. Cause OBAMA really hates gays, cause of Kenya. The rest is all just flim flammery to appease the enormous gay vote and donors. Cause Obama has no souuuuul.

I think the judge is probably one of the first USG officials to actually get this one right. But that's just my opinion - as I haven't dissected her legal argument in the ruling.

Skippy gets an 'F' for talking a big game, but only producing a lot of noise signifying nothing. He's been relentless on the issues near and dear to him, on the incidentals, not so much. Even as Chief Executive and C in C of the military, this is NOT one he can really do anything except lobby for, as it is a Congressional 'to do' item. Oh, and yeah, civilians regularly do tell the military 'what to do'. It's called 'civilian control of the military' - you may have heard of it.

And yes, a single individual, in the form of a federal judge, can and IS EXPECTED TO render judgements and opinions on Constitutional issues, which appears, by the reportage I've seen, the basis for her ruling.

The courts really are the only venue this policy will get an airing in - Congress is far too conflicted and/or inept to deal with it. The Dems may talk a good game, but when you pull a Harry, and allow a favored issue to be loaded down with a poison pill (the DREAM Act), you really have to question their desire to 'do' something, other than come up with something else to whine and point at the other party about.

There might be enough R votes to get it through, but not likely after November when the political class gets a smack around for being idiots. Many of the new incoming R's will be beholden (and very afraid of) the SoCon right, so it's probably an accurate assessment this issue is a dead letter through the legislative branch.

For disclosure, the following opinion on the issue is from a hetero with 24 years of active duty service in the USAF. (see next - damned 4,096 char limit!)

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

DADT is bad policy. For all the imaginary 'order and discipline' arguments that are put forward as a justification for continuing it, and the overall ban of gays in the military, my initial response is simple. Bullshit.

How can I be so dismissive? Simple. I served with quite a number of homosexuals during my tenure, in both routine and life-threatening situations, where everyone is depending on everyone else to make sure the mission is completed. And that is the key focus - the mission. Not who may or may not be looking at your butt, and what they may or may not be thinking. The vast majority really don't spend a lot of time considering if their BDU pants made their butts look big, or attractive. This may be dismissed as purely anecdotal, but the ONLY time that sexual orientation was made an issues was when someone who went absolutely batshit nuts because they found out airman X was gay. The only 'harrasment' I ever witnessed or heard about was hetero in nature. And oh, guess what, the same regulations that define the boundaries for male/female interaction are operative for male/male or female/female instances, as well. No need to 'study' the round object for a reinvention.

We've already lost the voluntary service of over 13K individuals because some people just couldn't deal with what other people may or may not have the inclination to do well out of their ear and eye shot. The wail of 'the Evangelicals will bolt' is yet another scare tactic by people with an intellectually bankrupt argument. Yes, I'm fairly confident they're just making shit up, and projecting their own intolerance. While some may elect to over ride their desire to serve their country because of what others think, my view is to let them do so, and admonish them not to let the door hit them in their bigotted intolerant asses on the way out the door. I'd rather serve (as I did) with people focused more on MISSION than who's diddling who, and what positions they may be using.

DADT and the ban on gays is one of the few examples of where intolerance and actual hatred is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in American society (and yes, our military is a part of OUR society). It's PAST time to end the idiocy, and we've been ill served by our political class, on BOTH sides of the aisle, in doing so.

I'm surprised to find out that both Senators from Arkansas are Republican now. Senators Lincoln and Pryor voted againt the Defense Appropriation Bill with the repeal of DADT and the Dream Act riders. Senator Reid was the third Democrat who voted against it, but that was just a procedural move.

Gotta agree with Fen. I grew up around the Air Force (Dad was in for 20 years), and enlisted in the Army. Totally different lifestyles, unless you are talking Forward Air Controllers or PJ's. But Army life in the field even in the Combat Service Support units (such as Intel) is very close, with little or no privacy. From my time in the 101st in the Gulf War, I can assure you that eliminating DADT WILL affect unit cohesion.

@ wind.rider, the fact that you are even trying to articulate your position on DADT only goes to show how divisive it really is, not from the standpoint of homosexuals serving, but trying to have them serve openly. If you have to make the kind of argument that you are making, then it's better to not have homosexuals serve openly at all.

I didn't know our soldiers were such pussies that they'd start fucking up their duties and have hissy fits just because their gay brothers-and-sisters-in-arms don't have to conceal, lie and deny anymore. Go figure... all the Marines and soldiers in my family and that I have known must have been made of stronger stuff that today's military personnel...

Or maybe it's really that all you armchair generals, ee-van-jellicles and other assorted miscreants don't actually understand the strength and resilience of our military and how this won't affect our troops one damn bit, except maybe to encourage a few good men and women who would have otherwise passed up the opportunity to serve their country.

I'd actually prefer that everyone shut up about their personal relationships, sexual conquests and love interests while in the work environment (including the military), gays and straights alike. But this isn't an ideal world we live in.

Now, can we move on to more important things, like saving our economy from the Democrats?

Chase: Are seriously equating the experience of college with the experience of the military?

Dude, get this in your head: gays can serve openly almost everywhere in society other than the military. You said Evangelicals will leave the military if gays are allowed to serve openly there, so where are Evangelicals going to go?

You have to defend YOUR position. You are the one making crazy statements.

If judge deprive the military of their surveys on their populace (which should have been accomplished a long time ago), the people of their right to debate, and the Congress of their vote, like they did Roe vs. Wade, they deserve to be kicked off the court.

It would not be the first time.

And for the record, I have no real preference either way. But we are talking about a fundamental breach of the judiciary here.

Or maybe it's really that all you armchair generals, ee-van-jellicles and other assorted miscreants don't actually understand the strength and resilience of our military and how this won't affect our troops one damn bit, except maybe to encourage a few good men and women who would have otherwise passed up the opportunity to serve their country.

If you took a poll today of active military members and asked what they wanted, I don't think you'd like the results.

Whiskey Jim:But we are talking about a fundamental breach of the judiciary here.

No we're not. This type of case is exactly what the judiciary is for.

There are many minorities on all sorts of different subjects in this country (not just sexuality) and the only reason we agree to abide by the rule of the majority is because we know we have certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution that the majority cannot take away from us. When the majority disrespects those rights we can turn to the judiciary for relief.

The judiciary's job is to restore the order our Founding Father's set up when the majority tries to destroy it. That seems to be what is being done.

It's funny how supporters of DADT will say the military isn't a Democracy, and also ask you to imagine what the soldiers think.

But you know what? America has a constitutional government and the military not only protects the constitution, but has to abide by it!

Soldiers shouldn't get "everything they want" without restraint any more than a majority of Americans. This isn't a dictatorship or even a nation of majority rule. We have rights guaranteed by the constitution which the majority has to respect.

"I also served. When I hear other people say that they served with all of these gays, I'm left to wonder, things sure must have changed since I was in."

That goes for me too. The ardor for the repeal of DADT is in inverse proportion to time actually served. Those who have never been in are red hot for it;those who have spent time in a barracks squad bay not so much. I wonder why that is?

Something else just occurred to me about when I was in. I was drafted in June 1966. Back then, you had to take a physical to determine your fitness to serve. How many young men, straight or homo (the term gay, was not used back then), said they were homosexual to get out of the service? I'll bet a lot did.

Question. Is there any statistics on the breakdown of men and women discharged under DADT? How many of those decided that they wanted out of the service, so they proclaimed that there were gay so they could be discharged? Repealing DADT would take away that option of an early release.

Palladian wrote:I'd actually prefer that everyone shut up about their personal relationships, sexual conquests and love interests while in the work environment (including the military), gays and straights alike. But this isn't an ideal world we live in.

Jason (the commenter wrote)It's funny how supporters of DADT will say the military isn't a Democracy, and also ask you to imagine what the soldiers think.

But you know what? America has a constitutional government and the military not only protects the constitution, but has to abide by it!

I think that the military should have coed barracks and bathrooms. Do you have a problem with that? If women are taking a shower and men ogle them they should suck it up, knowing that there is no such thing as separation of genders and all are equal and thus there is no reason to be offended. Besides, those men who would ogle women sexually are a distinct minority. The vast majority will look at women asexually as comrades in arms, and have no sexual thought about their glistening bodies and pert breasts. Why ruin a coed army because of a few bad apples who can't keep their sexual thoughts to themselves?

Palladian, you called my mother and father, 2 of my brothers, 13 of my close relatives, and now my son - all Marines - "pussies". You can include the Commandant of the US Marine Corps and the 2 relatives of mine who died in Iraq so you can have your freedom to be and live however you want here.

What surprises me most about this thread is our hostess's seeming insistence that the Obama administration pick and choose which statutes to enforce.

Who should argue for DADT, if not the administration? The faculty of Ave Maria and Regent law schools?

Every election we are treated to the spectacle of DA and Attorney General candidates who assure us that even though they are personally against the death penalty, they will still ask for it when appropriate. Should these people, too, be conscientious objectors?

@FLS, every once in a while your comments make you out to be a thoughtful person. Please stop!

At any rate there is an interesting precedent. When Chief Justice Taney (he of the Dred Scott decision, but I'm sure you knew that) ruled that Lincoln could not by himself suspend habeus corpus because suspension of habeus corpus was in Article I, which deals with the legislative branch (despite Biden's assertion to the contrary in his debate with Sarah Palin). Lincoln ignored Taney because he commanded the army and Taney commanded no troops.

Would women like to have men ogle them while they take showers? Some might, but a lot more might view such an environment as hostile. And many men WOULD look at women sexually if given the oppportunity. With that being said, don't proponents of gays serving openly in the military not realize that it sets up that very same hostile environment for those serving with gays who aren't gay? This is not to say that all gay men are going to be jacking off watching the handsome navy guy taking a shower. But it's a potentially hostile environment. And the military would not allow women to go through it, and so separate them from the men so as to not cause said problems to occur. They also don't want enlisted men to be fraterinizing with each other sexually, as it is disruptive of a units morale and can cause a lot of problems. Separating out the sexes thus spares the military the probem of having to deal with these problematic relationships. Unless gay men are going to live with women and gay women are going to live with men on the barracks you're going to have problems where people are going to be put in a situation where they feel they are not comfortorable in their unit,because of unwanted attention from someone who might view them sexually OR gays will live together separately and then view each other sexually and potentially be copulating in the barracks. THis is not an indictment of gays per se either. Straight men are as guilty of this as gays. Which is why they are separated from women. Which is also why almost no one wants to go to the bathroom in a unisex bathroom. Are women going to feel comfortorable taking a crap in a bathroom with guys walking in and out of it? Guys are probably more accomodating but that's because they have less shame, and also probably want to get a peek at women in the stalls. But if there were unisex bathrooms many people would cease using public restrooms as its simply too uncomfortorable to go to the bathroom with someone of the opposite gender in the same room. It's a similar principle as having an openly gay military.

@jr565, I recollect from my days as a Vietnam-era draftee overhearing two straight WACs describe their discomfort at being spied upon by lesbian barracks-mates. I assume that hasn't changed in the intervening 40 years, and I think it's not merely straight men (a particular boogeyman for leftists) but female enlisted personnel who will also find themselves in a hostile situation.

DADT has worked out pretty well, better than I had expected when it was first promulgated. What is it about leftists that if it ain't broke, they feel an urgent need to "fix" it until it is broken?

After all, it's not as though Andrew Sullivan plans to enlist (or could make it through boot camp if he did).